This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Complicated dg test cases

From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
Cc: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>, Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:21:51 +0100
Subject: Re: Complicated dg test cases
References: <401D3019.5050800@kegel.com> <40276D0B.9020504@kegel.com> <9E87E482-5AF5-11D8-8ADD-000A95A4DC02@kernel.crashing.org> <87znbs193r.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <2DF715BA-5B24-11D8-8ADD-000A95A4DC02@kernel.crashing.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402092035240.20969@wotan.suse.de>

On 9-feb-04, at 20:44, Michael Matz wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
But yes, I agree with you that adding the "return 0;" would be a nice
cleanup, not only to reduce "risks" but also just for style points.
It's a cleanup only in C99 (and C++).

But the code in question _is_ C++.

Segher

References:
- Re: Complicated dg test cases
  - From: Dan Kegel
- Re: Complicated dg test cases
  - From: Dan Kegel
- Re: Complicated dg test cases
  - From: Segher Boessenkool
- Re: Complicated dg test cases
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Complicated dg test cases
  - From: Segher Boessenkool
- Re: Complicated dg test cases
  - From: Michael Matz

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]